Hannu L' T' Heikkinen Jyvskyln yliopisto Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos

1
Kasvatustieteen päivät Joensuu 25.-26.11 2004.
Kartta maastosta. Filosofia ja kasvatustieteen
metodologia.

• Hannu L. T. Heikkinen Jyväskylän yliopisto
  Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos
• Rauno Huttunen Joensuun yliopisto Kasvatustieteen
  laitos
• Katrin Niglas Tallinn Pedagogical University
• Päivi Tynjälä Jyväskylän yliopisto Koulutuksen
  tutkimuslaitos

2
Methodological naivism

quantitative
qualitative
3
Methodological naivism

4
The roots of current debates

• Early debates
• from 17th century to the first half of 20th
  centuries
• Prosperity of positivism and the domination of
  quantitative methods in social sciences
• from 1930s to 1950s
• The debunking of logical positivism after World
  War II and the pervasiveness of the
  postpositivist position
• the end of 1950s and beginning of 1960s
• The ascendance of interpretivism and
  constructivism, followed by the paradigm wars
• from late 1960s onwards

5
Main distinctions seen between quantitative and
qualitative paradigms

• - The Conventional and Constructivist Belief
  Systems (Adapted from Guba and Lincoln
  1989)

6
Main distinctions seen between quantitative and
qualitative paradigms

• - Different levels of research as seen by
  interpretivists/incompatibilists

Epistemological level
positivism
interpretivism/ constructivism
quantitative paradigm
qualitative paradigm
Methodological level
Technical level
quantitative methods
qualitative methods
Data
quantitative data
qualitative data
7
Main distinctions seen between quantitative and
qualitative paradigms

• - Common dichotomies in methodological literature

8
Different views about the relationship between
qualitative and quantitative methodologies

• - Strong paradigmatic view
• Only one of approaches is good/appropriate/scien
  tific enough for the inquiry about the social
  life. Quantitative and qualitative research
  methodologies are tightly bound to different
  mutually exclusive epistemological positions,
  therefore the combination or mixing of those
  approaches is not possible.
• - Weak paradigmatic view
• Both approaches can be used and are useful, but
  as they carry with them different philosophical
  underpinnings they are suitable in very different
  
• situations and contexts and therefore one can
  not and should not combine quantitative and
  qualitative approaches in the framework of one
  study.
• - Opponents of paradigmatic view
• Quantitative and qualitative approaches are
  both regarded as useful and proper ways of going
  to study the social world. Although there are
  some major differences between quantitative and
  qualitative research there are also some
  important similarities between them. The
  integrated use of different methodologies is
  welcome if it can advance our understanding about
  the phenomenon under the investigation.

9
Guba Lincoln development of paradigm system
10
Quantitative and qualitative methodologies as
complementary approaches

• - Paradigmatic model does not fit the actual
  (research) practice(Eckeberg and Hill 1980,
  Freidheim 1979, McNamara 1979, Hammersley
  1992,Niglas 1999, )
• - Qualitative and quantitative methodologies are
  not polar but constitute a continuum and the
  influence of different philosophical schools of
  thought to research methodology is much more
  diffuse as it has been depicted by the proponents
  of paradigmatic view (Hammersley 1992, Bryman
  1988, Howe 1988, Newman Benz 1998, Niglas 2001
  2004, )

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Literature

• Heikkinen, H. 1997. Objektiivisuuskohtauksista
  relativismin suohon. Paradigmasiirtymän
  tarkastelua Guban ja Lincolnin vanavedessä.
  Teoksessa P. Nuutinen (Toim.) Tutkiva opettaja.
  Kokemuksista pedagogiikaksi. Joensuu Joensuu
  University Press.
• Heikkinen, H., Kakkori. L. Huttunen, R. 2001.
  This is my truth tell me yours. Educational
  Action Research 9 (1), 2001. http//www.triangle.c
  o.uk./ear/content/pdfs/9/issue9_1.asp1
• Heikkinen, H. 2002. Whatever is narrative
  research? In R. Huttunen, H. Heikkinen L.
  Syrjälä. Narrative research. Voices of teachers
  and philosophers. Jyväskylä SoPhi.
• Huttunen, R. 2003. Rationaalisuusteorian vaatimus
  indoktrinaation määrittelyssä. Teoksessa R.
  Huttunen Kommunikatiivinen opettaminen.
  Indoktrinaation kriittinen teoria. Jyväskylä
  SoPhi.
• Huttunen, R., Heikkinen, H. Tynjälä, P. 2004.
  Voiko konstruktivisti olla realisti? Esitelmä
  aikuiskasvatuksen tutkijatapaamisessa 13.2.2004.
  http//joyx.joensuu.fi/rhuttun/voiko.ppt
• Niglas, K. 2004. The Combined Use of Qualitative
  and Quantitative Methods in Educational Research.
  Tallinn Pedagigical University. Dissertations on
  Social Sciences. TPÜ Kirjastus, Tallinn. ISBN
  9985-58-298-5. Short version http//www.ear.ee/e-
  rmtk/sotsiaalt.htm
• Niglas, K. 2001. Paradigms and Methodology in
  Educational Research.Paper given at ECER2001
  Available at Education Line http//www.leeds.ac.uk
  /educol/.
• Niglas, K. 2000. Combining Quantitative and
  Qualitative Approaches.Paper given at ECER2000
  Available at Education Line http//www.leeds.ac.uk
  /educol/.
• Niglas, K. 1999. Quantitative and Qualitative
  Inquiry in Educational Research is there a
  paradigmatic difference between them? Paper
  given at ECER1999 Available at Education Line
  http//www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/
• Tynjälä, P., Heikkinen, H. Huttunen, R. 2004.
  Konstruktivistinen oppimiskäsitys ohjaamisen
  perustana. Käsikirjoitus Aikuiskasvatuksen
  vuosikirjaan 2004. Toim. A. Malinen P. Sallila
  (Painossa.)